You went from Laws to Decisions, a euphemism for Mandates (majority choice) and the numerous thoughts that end with an omission (ellipsis) tell me that you'd rather rely on implicit nonsense instead on Grammar(definitions), Logic(why/how) Rhetoric (relative). It's the same story: It's ok by me if 90% agree on some insanity, because instead of that we have this situation that we are so powerless in, and not that such insanity couldn't be fabricated, it could, but it can only happen if they elites get away with it because 90% wouldn't let it happen, because democracy was ever a good idea. In the end you're relying on the idiocy of almost unilateral consensus to be formed which doesn't address the fact that by who or how the issues are phrased cannot take place in any kind of democratic way and you will never have 90% participation because 2/3 of people MANDATE every year that Democracy is Invalid, through their non-participation, which even if half of it was by choice or only a quarter, it would still make it that nobody will ever reach your consensus, nothing will ever come under agreement, not that such agreements wouldn't be redundant, to begin with.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: